[lkml]   [2007]   [Jul]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [linux-pm] Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway
> > Yes, fuse could handle being frozen there.  However that would only
> > solve part of the problem: an operation waiting for a reply could be
> > holding a VFS mutex and some other task may be blocked on that mutex.
> >
> > How would you solve freezing those tasks?
> OK, you made me reach for literatur on theoretical computer science.
> IMHO the range of actions a fuse server is inherently limited.
> You must never ever block on a lock one of your clients is holding. In
> this case the limitation is not influenced by the freezer.

Obviously. But I wasn't about the server trying to acquire a lock
held by a client. I was talking about a client trying to acquire a
lock held by _another_ client.

If this coincides with the server (or some other task which the server
is depending on) being frozen before the clients, the freezer has a

> The freezer introduces a further limitation in that the server can freeze
> before the client, which must not be. You can prevent that by freezing
> the servers last.
> In principle you might have dependencies between servers and you won't
> catch that, true. You won't catch servers blocking on IPC, but you are
> balancing on the edge of deadlock with fuse anyway.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-07-05 22:49    [W:0.109 / U:7.080 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site